Vi kan ikke leve i fred med hinanden.

Måske ikke ligefrem indskoling, men en så kort video retfærdiggør ikke en post. Fransk politi efterforsker en voldtægtssag det mest åbenlyse sted og trænges væk

Skuespilleren Shoshana Roberts gik i 10 timer gennem New Yorks gader, mens hun blev filmet i skjul. Ideen var at vise, hvorledes nogle mænd hverken kan holde deres øjne eller tanker for sig selv

Bortset fra klammoerne, der følger hende er fleste kommentarer ikke ondsindede omend lettere kiksede til det ucharmerende. Og de giver måske et indtryk af en virkelighed, de fleste af os (desværre) er ikke er forundt, som Allahpundit pointerer på Hot Air, hvor han selv har følgende sigende anekdote

The only time I can recall being present when a woman was catcalled on the streets was once a few years ago when I was getting off the subway and a beautiful blonde woman dressed for a night out was getting on. Men stopped in their tracks; someone in the vicinity (no, not me) said, loudly enough for everyone nearby to hear, “Oh yeah, that’s a ten.”

“Oh yeah, that’s a ten” er en sigende bemærkning fordi den ikke anråber vores opmærksomhed, som “Se den røv!”, men selvfølgeligt antager den og sætter en kommentar på. Den er næsten bedre end videoen, var det ikke for den vandrende babe.

Nu er almindelig sexchikane på gadeplan, hvis maskuline komplimenter absolut skal kaldes det, ikke Monokulturs største interesse. Men det er chancen for lidt lummer racisme derimod. For at dømme efter udseende og stemmeføring kommer 2/3 af bemærkningerne fra negre. Og af resten virker det lettere latinohvidt. En neger har måske derfor indvendinger.

Når man slår ned i et kobbel ulve…

Ifølge BT har Shoshana Roberts siden modtaget trusler, men om dem ved vi ikke mere end at det øjensynlig blot er fra mænd.

Kulturcentre, kaldes moskeer tit, og her lærer børn, hvad muslimsk kultur er. Fra WND

An Ontario mosque is coming under fire for using young Muslim children to conduct mock beheadings in a school play.

Video footage of the Islamic Jaffari Center in Thornhill, Ontario, shows children as young as 4 years old watching and learning to conduct beheadings in a play that reportedly took place two years ago.

The video was featured on the Canada’s Sun News Network television program, “Byline with Brian Lilley.”

A young boy can be seen sitting on the floor as another boy approaches him from behind with a machete.

At the end of the play, the boy playing the part of the executioner announces, “Here are the heads.”

The footage can be found at the 3:30 mark:

Men endnu tidligere lærer muslimerne deres børn om kausalitet, som The Muslim Issue skriver

Another abusive Muslim parent. With parents like this, who needs enemies?

This video will really, really upset a lot of people. She appears to barely be a few months old yet she is already learning what abuse means in the Saudi household she had the misfortune to be born into. Absolutely barbaric to even consider beating a SMALL INFANT!

The video shows a Saudi Arabian father disciplining a small infant (possibly for crying). The voice of the callous mother can be heard coaxing her savage husband in the background.

The video was posted on the Arab version of al-Jazeera (not available on the English translated version) and spread through social media. The father is from Jedda in Saudi Arabia and its said that he was “only educating her”.

Det kaldes en bastonade.

Hugh Fitzgerald fortæller på New English Review

Isn’t that the question that ought to be asked all over the Western world? Not to try to say that the mentally ill, who just happen to be converts to Islam, kill people, but that those who are psychically off, if they convert to anything, nowadays will almost certainly to convert to Islam.

So what is it about Islam that makes it so attractive to them?

Let’s give the answers now, again, before some clever fellows apply for a government grant of five or perhaps ten million dollars to answer, after ponderous studies, involving lots and lots of researchers, and papers, and conferences, and come, finally, tortuously, to the conclusions which you and I can come to right now, and spoil their well-paid, overpaid, fun.

1. Islam offers a Total Regulation of Life. Like the Junior Woodchucks of America, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, you get special Arabic words to learn: Allahu Akbar, alhumdulillah, Jihad, Kuffar, things like that. You get to make up a special name, in Arabic, for yourself. It can express your origin in a particular country: Al-Amriki, Al-Frangi, Al-Britani, just the way those to the manner born can be called Al-Misri (from Egypt) or Al-Shami or Al-Hijazi. You can give yourself a new first name: Stephen might choose to become Suleiman. It’s such fun. A new identity, and an instant Community of Bruvvers, fellow Believers, one for all and all for one (that can be especially important in prison).

2. Islam offers a Compleat Explanation of the Universe. Life is so confusing, so overwhelming. But to the True Believer, life suddenly beomes simple. See Eric Hoffer. There is the Enemy — in Islam,it’s the non-Muslims, the Unbelievers, the Kuffars, the Ungrateful Ones. .There is the Cause for which one subsumes one’s own personality (not that such people ever had much of one to begin with), ready to do everything, ideally, for that Cause. And Islam is all about a Cause — the Cause of Islam itself. The true object of worship in Islam is not Allah, but Islam. It is for Islam that we live and die. And Muslims, to the precise extent that they take Islam to heart (and someone may not take Islam to heart, and then do so, but converts ordinarily are among the most fanatical, the least willilng to modify their behavior, or to embarrassedly or uneasily try to ignore some of the tenets and teachings of Islam).

3. In prisons in the Western world, where Musliims represent such a disproportionate number of those incarcerated (in France Muslims may be 5% of the population, but constitute 60% of the prison population, and similar figures can be found in every other country in Western Europe) Islam is attractive as a Gang, the biggest and most dangerous Gang, and the one you want to belong to, for your own protection against others, and of course, against that Muslim Gang. Western governments have yet to do the obvious and sane thing, which would be to put Muslims in prisons for Muslims only, keeping them away from others who might otherwise convert to this dangerous doctrine.

4. Islam legitimizes criminal behavior. It makes the convert feel good about his behavior, not ashamed or guilty. Have you raped, or stolen from, or killed people, peope who are not Muslims? That’s not only not a crime, but they have it coming to them. Not only have you not done wrong, but if you continue to do what you are doing, you can see it in a new light: you are merely helping yourself to the Jizyah that the Infidel nation-state, for now, prevents you from claiming. If you rape seductively-dressed Western women, that is women who aren’t wearing a niqab, or chador, or even a hijab, and whose skirts may be short, and who may wear lipstick and rouge, then they are asking for it. The little English girls who were made sex slaves deserved what they got. So for a certain kind of convert to Islam, his life now becomes justifiable; he’s been a warrior for Islam all along.

5. Islam provides a permanent source of enmity — the Infidel — whom you can blame for all of your woes. That’s very relaxing. In the Western world, we find so many different things to blame if things go wrong — and things always go wrong. But in Islam, you can always blame the Infidel for everything. And that’s what Musilms do, with their conspiracy theorizing, all the time.

6. So that’s why criminals and homicidal maniacs find Islam so attractive. Do you know of any homicidal maniacs who decided to convert to Judaism or Buddhism? No, I haven’t, either. And if a criminal converts to Christianity, say in prison, aren’t we all relieved to hear it, don’t you feel he’s done the one thing that might help change him? Of course you do. Now imagine the glad tidings reach you that that same prisoner converted not to Christianity, but to Islam. Now how do you feel?

Hooligans i Holland råber “Allah, din mor er en mær” under kampen mellem Feyenoord og Besiktas

I Milano samlede man 10.000 imod illegal indvandring

I Køln

Ja, det er helt bevægende. Franskmændene sørger for at have et ideologisk udgangspunkt, men også de ruster sig

Gode mænd sover trygt fordi hårde mænd er villige til at forsvare dem.

Ben Afflecks udfald mod TV-værten Bill Maher og bestseller ateisten Sam Harris har startet en hård debat på venstrefløjen om værdier overfor sympatier. Venstrefløjen (den del som i USA betegnes the liberals) har, hvis det er gået nogens næse forbi, glemt nogle af de værdier, de for årtier siden besmykkede sig med. Værdier som tolerance, frihed, ytringsfrihed, religionskritik osv til fordel for et romantisk billede af tilbagestående kulturer, der skulle tjene som en levende anklage mod højrefløjens kristne, heteronormative arvesynd.

Bill Maher og Sam Harris angreb netop venstrefløjens manglende evne til at bekæmpe islamisk fundamentalisme og Harris kaldte ligefrem islam for the motherload of bad ideas. Affleck blev i det traditionelle fjendebilledes univers og kaldte deres tankegan racistisk. Raymond Ibrahim i Frontpage Magazine kaster sig blandt andet over Afflecks væsentligste fejlslutning; ”Conflating Muslim Teachings with Muslim People“, som er et gennemgående tema i venstrefløjens tænkning

At one point, after the other speakers made certain statistical points, Affleck made the following outburst, to much applause: “How about the more than a billion people [Muslims], who aren’t fanatical, who don’t punish women, who wanna go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day, and don’t do any of the things you’re saying of all Muslims. It’s stereotyping.”

Again, Affleck conflates the actions of people—Muslims—with the teachings of a religion—Islam. Going back to the apostasy example, Islamic law clearly teaches that those who abandon Islam—including as the world recently saw, one pregnant Christian woman, Meriam Ibrahim—are to be executed.   One can therefore say that Sharia calls for the death of apostates.

But can one say with similar certainty that every single Muslim alive today believes that the apostasy penalty should be upheld? Obviously not. Yet this is not a reflection of Islam; it is a reflection of individual human freedom—a freedom that ironically goes against Islamic teaching.

Nonetheless, this conflation of Islam with Muslims is an all too common approach used to shield the former from criticism.   (See this 2007 video where I respond more fully to this question from a concerned reporter.)

Dennis Praeger kommenterede New York Times  lidt oversete Mr. Kristof i National Review

Then the New York Times columnist, Mr. Kristof, offered his take:

The picture you’re painting is to some extent true, but it is hugely incomplete. It is certain that plenty of fanatics and jihadis are Muslim, but [so are] the people who are standing up to them — Malala [the Pakistani twelve-year-old shot and critically wounded by Islamists for attending school and advocating that other girls do so], Muhammad Ali Dadkha in Iran, in prison for nine years for speaking up for Christians, [and] a friend that I had in Pakistan [who] was shot this year, Rashid Rahman, for defending people accused of apostasy.

Kristof’s response is a frequent one. So it is worth responding to.

It is quite true that there are heroic Muslims who are fighting the Islamists throughout the Muslim world — and that some of them have been murdered for doing so. These people are moral giants. But their existence has nothing to do with the criticisms leveled by Maher and Harris, since they never said or implied that all Muslims are bad. There were heroic Germans who fought Hitler and the Nazis. If Kristof had been present when people criticized Germany’s values, would he have labeled them “Germanophobes?”

But it was later in the dialogue that Kristof expressed the most dishonest of the Left’s arguments on this issue: “The great divide is not between Islam and the rest. It’s rather between the fundamentalists and the moderates in each faith.”

“In each faith,” Mr. Kristof?

Where, sir, are the Christian and Jewish jihadists? The only Jewish state in the world is one of the freest countries on earth, with protections — for minority religions and women and homosexuals — unknown anywhere in the Muslim world. And virtually every free country across the globe is in the Christian world.

Presumably, these are just “ugly” facts.

This debate was valuable. Even more valuable would be if Mr. Maher and Mr. Harris came to realize that the death of Judeo-Christian values and their being supplanted by leftism is producing hundreds of millions of people who think like Ben Affleck and Nicholas Kristof.

Og Den frafaldne muslim Sadaf Ali føler sig på Free Thoughts Blogs svigtet af Affleks og kommer midt i vældet af selvretfærdighed med et par udmærkede pointer (der nu mest er udmærkede fordi hun tjener som en af de kokosnødder venstrefløjsere føler sig svigtet af)

I have a personal appeal to Ben Affleck, after his participation on Bill Maher’s show, because it is attitudes like his that have historically made little to no room for ex-Muslims, secular, reformists, liberal or progressive Muslims to own a dialogue that is supposed to be ours to discuss.

I think it is important to notice how I referred to the event on Maher’s show as a scuffle and not a debate. That’s because it wasn’t a debate. There was no exchange of ideas. In fact, the mere suggestion of the criticism of Islam was slammed as ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic’ by Affleck.

(…)

Affleck uses the death and suffering of my peoples as a tool to suffocate the discourse of Islam and as an Afghan-Canadian, I am upset by this. How dare you? Islam as an ideology is not flawless. No ideology is. Much in the same way Affleck played a part in the film ‘Dogma’ to satirize or criticize Christianity, others are allowed to criticize Islam. Furthermore, Islamists must be confronted. Those who preach the death of apostates and LGBTQ peoples, and seek the inequality of genders and wish to marginalize minorities must be condemned.

The thing that made the scuffle worse was the straw man argument. No one there on the panel insinuated that the flaws in Islam should be used as a justification to murder innocent people halfway across the world. Affleck fails to acknowledge the pain, alienation, ostracization and abuse people also face here in the name of someone’s literal interpretations of Islam. Islamism isn’t just about terrorism. Islamism poisons our cultures around the globe. Islamism hurts me. Islamism hurts apostates. Islamism hurts non-Muslims. Islamism hurts our families. And most of all: Islamism hurts Muslims.

(…)

Am I then a racist for criticizing scriptures that clearly condone the infantilization of women, the allowance for physical means to control women and the condemnation of a queer apostate such as myself? Am I, as a secular humanist who is directly affected by my cultural and religious communities, communities in which homophobia, transphobia, sexism and racism exist, not entitled to acceptance, love and dignity? What about those brave and selfless individuals in theocratic regimes who suffer and put their life on the line for their rights? Am I then asking for bombs to be dropped on innocent people? Are activists in theocratic states asking for bombs to be dropped on them?

Og en anden pe… indvandrer, den pakistanske Eiynah ”born and raised in Islam” problematiserer også Afflecks forfladigelse af racismebegrebet og underkendelse af islamkritik i et åbent brev i Pakistan Today

Why should any set of ideas be above criticism, Ben?

Why are Muslims being ‘preserved’ in some time capsule of centuries gone by? Why is it okay that we continue to live in a world where our women are compared to candy waiting to be consumed? Why is it okay for women of the rest of the world to fight for freedom and equality while we are told to cover our shameful bodies? Can’t you see that we are being held back from joining this elite club known as the 21st century?

Noble liberals like yourself always stand up for the misrepresented Muslims and stand against the Islamophobes, which is great but who stands in my corner and for the others who feel oppressed by the religion? Every time we raise our voices, one of us is killed or threatened. I am a blogger and illustrator, no threat to anyone, Ben, except for those afraid of words and drawings. I want the freedom to express myself without the very real fear that I might be killed for it. Is that too much to ask?

(…)

What you did by screaming ‘racist!’ was shut down a conversation that many of us have been waiting to have. You helped those who wish to deny there are issues, deny them.

Jeg har valgt at ignorere hendes vrøvlende og selvmodsigende ævl om eksistensen af islamofobi. Venstrefløjen er på vej ind i en alvorlig identitetskrise. De er i deres fokus på deres traditionelle modstandere på højrefløjen blevet blinde over for at den kritik der rejses af multikulturalisme generelt og islam især, lige så vel kunne være deres egen kritik. At hæjrefløjen ikke blot advarer om at deres distinkte værdier er truet, men at de fælles værdier vi bygger vores samfund på er truet. At det er selve ideen om et fællesskab, hvor vi tillader andre det samme som vi tillader os selv. Venstrefløjen må befri sig selv fra den falske skyldfølelse som marxisternes pseudointellektuelle fortælling har forført dem med. Venstrefløjen er nødt til at erkende prisen for de antidemokratiske og undergravende overgangskrav.

Først kommer lørdag, så kommer søndag, hedder den islamiske drøm om at slagte først jøderne og så de kristne. En ikke helt ny dokumentar, man ganske god at få indsigt af.

En far stener sin datter til døde i Levanten efter islams foreskrifter.

Robert Spencer pointerer normaliteten

Stoning adulterers is not “extremist”; it is Islamic law. The caliph Umar, one of Muhammad’s closest companions, even maintained that it was originally in the Qur’an:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari 8.82.816)

“Allah’s Apostle” is, of course, Muhammad, who did indeed carry out stonings. Here is the hadith in which he challenges the rabbis about stoning, and in which there is amidst the barbarism and brutality a final act of love and compassion:

The Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Apostle said to them, “What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?” They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them.” Abdullah bin Salam said, “You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm.” They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, “Lift your hand.” When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, “Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones.” (Bukhari 4.56.829)

I Kobanes ruiner fandt man det måske mest foruroligende billede til dato på en død gedekneppers mobiltelefon

Raymond Ibrahim skriver i Middle East Forum om sexslaver i islam

During Muhammad’s jihad on the Jews of Khaybar, he took for himself from among the spoils of war one young woman, a teenager, Safiya bint Huyay, after hearing of her beauty. (Earlier the prophet had bestowed her on another Muslim jihadi, but when rumor of her beauty reached him, the prophet reneged and took her for himself.)

Muhammad “married” Safiya hours after he had her husband, Kinana, tortured to death in order to reveal hidden treasure. And before this, the prophet’s jihadis slaughtered Safiya’s father and brothers.

While Islamic apologists have long tried to justify this account—often by saying that Muhammad gave her the honor of “marriage” as opposed to being a concubine and that she opted to convert to Islam—they habitually fail to cite what Islamic sources record, namely Baladhuri’s ninth century Kitab Futuh al-Buldan (”Book of Conquests”).

According to this narrative, after the death of Muhammad, Safiya confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” before “marrying” (or, less euphemistically, raping) her.

So there it is. Muhammad seized for himself as rightfully earned booty (or ghanima) a young woman; he took her after killing everyone dear to her—husband, father, brothers, etc.

And, according to authoritative Islamic sources, she hated him for it.

If that is not rape, what is?

Islam er, som islam er og nu gives hele pakken.

Man er vant til at berømtheder sludrer uhæmmet udenfor deres fagområde og som regel med en venstredrejer og antinational slagside. Skuespilleren Sean Penn sagde således ifølge Daily Mail i 2012 at ‘The world today is not going to tolerate any ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology.’ med henvisning til Englands ret til at forsvare sit herredømme over Falklandsøerne, sit folk og folkets ret til at vedblive at være engelske mod Argentinas invasion. Roger Daltrey fra Pink Floyd var i samme ånd ked af sit lands kolonialistiske fortid “when we were out raping and plundering and stealing”. Musikeren Morrisey, der skrev nummeret ‘Margaret [Thatcher] On The Guillotine’ erklærede også ifølge Daily Mail “We all know that the Malvinas [Falklands] are Argentina’s,” til sit argentinske publikum ved en koncert i Buenos Aires samme år, hvor hans band optrådte tillige optrådte med ‘WE HATE WILLIAM AND KATE’ t-shirts.

Og derfor er det forfriskende når en vestlig berømthed viser glæde og stolthed ved sit land og dets bedrifter, det der kaldes at være kontroversiel. Den engelske TV vært for underholdningsprogrammet Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson er blevet stenet ud af et forsmået Argentina for at gå imod revisionismen skriver Daily Mail

Jeremy Clarkson has told how he and his Top Gear team were forced to flee Argentina under police escort as furious thugs tried to ‘kill’ them.

Rock-throwing protesters vowed to ‘barbecue’ the controversial motoring show host after a row over the star’s number plate boiled over.

Trouble erupted after a photo of Clarkson, 54, driving a Porsche with the number plate H982 FKL, circulated online, enraging Falklands War veterans who claimed it referred to the 1982 conflict.

The presenter yesterday said the violent protest was ’state-organised’ accusing the Argentinians of taking advantage of their visit for ‘political capital’.

Når et regime benytter pøbelvold kaldes det Den Rumænske Løsning. Navnet stammer fra det rumænske overgangsregimes løsning på de folkelige protester, der forlangte deres opgør med Ceaucescu tilbage. I titusindvis havde folk samlet sig på Universitetspladsen i Bukarest for at tvinge demokratiske valg igennem, men kommunist og kupmager Ion Iliescu hev minearbejderne ned fra bjergene og fortalte dem at hippier var skyld i at de ikke havde fået løn i måneder. Bevæbnet med bla jernrør blev arbejderklassen forvanlet til en bøllehær der på regimets vegne knuste middelklassens oprør for folkets frihed. Kvasitotalitære styreformer elsker den slags. Man ser den også i Ægypten, Hong Kong, Iran og Sverige.

Argentinerne har selvfølgelig intet krav på Falklandsøerne. Falklandsøerne er britisk herredømme og har været det snart 200 år. Der bor stor set kun briter og britiske efterkommere på øen og ønsket om at forblive under britisk overherredømme er massivt. Argentina derimod er en kolonialistisk opfindelse, bestående af kolonialister fra Europa, der har fordrevet indianerne og indiansk kultur. Og fordi de åbenbart stadig sidder fast i drømmene fra deres bestialske militærdiktatur vil vi lige mindes hvorledes de blev sparket hjem, hvor de end ikke hører til.

Eller

Eller en lidt klodset dramatisering

Eller (endnu) et gensyn, med den fremragende The Falklands Play

Jeg tror kun det er Politiken der trykker forsvar for svenskernes retouchering af Pippi Langstrømpes dystre racistiske fortid. Hurrah for diversiteten, skal det ærligt siges. For det ville være kedeligt uden produktionsleder i Io-Interactive, engelske Luke Valentins møde med danskernes, her repræsenteret ved BTs læseres, syn på ytringsfrihed kontra krænkede følelser. 96% mener nemlig at svenskerne har truffet et dårligt valg ved at redigere i Pippi Langstrømpe efter svenske standarder for racisme

Sagen omhandler to scener med racistisk indhold. Den første fra et afsnit, hvor Pippi laver skæve ’kineserøjne’. Dengang vores datter jævnligt så dvd’er med Pippi Langstrømpe, blev vi selv overraskede, da vi så netop denne scene.

Den virker måske sjov og harmløs i sammenhængen, men morskaben er svær at få øje på, når man selv bliver udsat for den slags.

Netop sammenhængen er helt afgørende. Og når Valentin selv mener den er både sjov og harmløs burde han måske slutte sig til de 96% istedet for at tænke at SVTs beslutning var “på tide”. En anden sammenhæng han forståeligt nok derimod ikke mener er sjov og harmløs gik ud over hans delvist fillipinske kone, der i metroen “var [] blevet omringet af tre danske teenagere, som flere gange lavede skæve øjne og sagde ’kinesiske’ lyde” til hende. Om det er Pippi Langstrømpe der må tage den på sin kappe står uafklaret. Men sorte Lindgren var ikke færdig med at forfærde

Den andet eksempel på racisme refererede til en ’negerkonge’, som fremover blot skal hedder ’konge’. Det er ikke en episode, jeg tidligere har lagt mærke til i Pippi Langstrømpe.

Jeg skal indrømme, at jeg måske ikke kan fornemme ordets nuancer helt så godt, som en dansker kan. Jeg har engelsk som modersmål, og for mig forekommer det som et meget stødende ord, der er gennemsyret af had. Den slags skal ikke normaliseres og bør ikke fremstå i uskyldigt skær i børne-tv, uanset hvor gammelt programmet er.

At kende et ords nuancer er nu en vigtig forudsætning for at afgøre om et ord er stødende i en sammenhæng. Men Valentin hænger sig ikke i semantik og er i stedet mere opsat på at opbyde sit hjemlands vemodige etikette og forklarer

For os briter udgør klokken ni en tidsgrænse, hvorefter man i tv må vise programmer, hvis indhold er mere egnet for voksne seere.

Den slags har jeg aldrig opfattet som et udtryk for censur, men for et ønske om at beskytte børn. Når mine børn ser CBBC (børnenes BBC), har jeg tillid til, at indholdet er passende for deres aldersgruppe, og at børnene hverken vil støde på ord som ’nigger’ (neger) eller lære, hvordan man mobber asiater.

Og så bedyrer han han ellers at han tror på ytringsfrihed, men maner samtidig til ansvar. Men han misforstår debatten om Pippi Langstrømpe, der ikke handler om Astrid Lindgrens ret til racisme, men om hvorledes Sverige er blevet så fordrukken af sin selverklærede status som humanistisk stormagt at de nu redigerer deres egen historie fordi de ikke længere ved, hvad der er racisme og hvad der er ’sjovt og harmløst’.

Mens jeg sad og overvejede hvorledes jeg kunne gøre mig kostelig over Valentins hellige opsang gjorde en ven mig opmærksom på at spiludviklere som netop Luke Valentin jo også udtrykker sig for børn og unge. Og han henviste mig til et interview i Eurogamer hvor Valentin taler om sit bedste produkt, spilsuccesen Hitman

Luke Valentine er producer på Hitman: Absolution, og dermed ansvarlig for den overordnede produktion af det næste kapitel i Hitman-sagaen. Derudover er han også den anden af de ledende folk på Hitman-projektet, som vi snakkede med i forbindelse med vores preview af Agent 47s seneste eventyr.

Først og fremmest, ville jeg gerne spørge om, hvordan IO selv har det med, at bringe Hitman af stalden efter 6 år i dvale. På et marked som har ændret sig meget på disse seks år. Om de har gjort sig nogen særlige tanker om, hvordan de kan tilpasse Hitman til et marked, der er både større og bredere, end for seks år siden.

“Markedet er jo langt større, end det var for seks år siden, og derudover så har vi jo også at gøre med en hel ny konsolgeneration. For seks år siden, var vi jo i slutningen af levetiden for PlayStation 2 og den oprindelige Xbox. Så både spillene og markedet har flyttet sig meget”, begynder Luke sit svar.

(…)

“Vi vil virkelig gerne sørge for, at vi kan tilfredsstille vores kernepublikum. Dem der har været sultne efter et nyt Hitman. Men på samme tid vil vi også gerne være i stand til at række ud efter folk, som ikke har spillet Hitman før. Alle dem der var 12 år, da det sidste spil udkom, er gamle nok til at spille Hitman nu.”

“Hitman har været væk for længe, og det undskylder vi. Vi mener jo, at Hitman er den oprindelige ‘Assassination-game’.”

Og Dansk Wikipedia beskriver Hitman således

Hitman er en serie computerspil udviklet af det danske spilfirma IO Interactive og udgivet af den engelske udgiver Eidos Interactive.

Spillene omhandler den klonede/genmanipulerede Agent 47. Han er kendetegnet ved at bære sort jakkesæt, altid at have glatbarberet hoved og ved at have en stregkode tatoveret i nakken.

En stor del af spillet går ud på at bevæge sig ubemærket rundt. Dette kan gøres ved at snige sig forbi vagter, eller ved at uskadeliggøre personer og derefter bruge deres tøj som forklædning. Agent 47 råder også over et begrænset arsenal af lydløse våben, som f.eks. fiberwire, knive og giftsprøjter, der effektivt kan bruges til at eliminere vagter og øvrige personer af særlig interesse som f.eks. Fernando Delgardo i banen “A Vintage Year” fra Hitman Blood-Money.

Hvert spil i serien er delt op i missioner, som typisk går ud på at infiltrere et afgrænset, lukket eller bevogtet miljø for at dræbe én eller flere specifikke personer. Hovedsagligt, består disse personer af narkohandlere, millionærer, krigsledere og andre kriminelle typer. Hvorvidt Agent 47 er ‘god’ eller ‘ond’ kan altså diskuteres, eftersom hans ofre altid selv er stærkt kriminelle. Der skal dog nævnes, at han ikke tøver med at dræbe uskyldige, hvis de på en eller anden måde skaber problemer for udførelsen af hans missioner.

Spillet lægger op til at spilleren dræber så få vagter og civile som muligt. Det er dog muligt for spilleren at myrde alle, skyldige som uskyldige. Straffen er lavere indtjening, (som i Hitman: Codename 47) eller dårligere ry (i de følgende spil). I Hitman: Blood Money straffes spilleren dog yderligere ved at vagternes opmærksomhed skærpes.

Hitman får altid stemplet “Blood and gore intense violence”.

Jeg skal indrømme, at jeg måske ikke kan fornemme et spils nuancer helt så godt, som en umoden kan. Jeg er voksen, og for mig forekommer det som et meget stødende spil, der er gennemsyret af had. Den slags skal ikke normaliseres og bør ikke fremstå i uskyldigt skær, uanset hvor gammelt programmet er. Den slags har jeg aldrig opfattet som et udtryk for censur, men for et ønske om at beskytte børn.

Daily Mail skriver om Kazakstans tradition for asymmetrisk bryllup

Video footage of an abducted girl dragged screaming and crying into a forced wedding has shamed Kazakhstan.

The disturbing clip, filmed on a mobile phone and titled Stealing The Bride, shows the moment the teenage girl arrives at the home of her future husband in Kazakhstan’s central Akmola region.

As wedding guests celebrate to traditional Kazakh music, the youngster sits in the back of a car crying and pleading to be taken home.

Og jeg vil være den sidste til at påstå at andre eksempler danner en trend eller er udtryk for noget grundlæggende i kulturen endsige religionen. Men tilfældigvis står det også således til i Kirkisistan
.

Skuespilleren Ben Afflecks udfald mod Bill Maher og Sam Harris jeg omtalte forleden demonstrerede et skisma hos venstrefløjen i forhold til realiteternes verden og egne værdier. Maher og Harris prøvede at stille venstrefløjen (liberals) til ansvar for deres svigt af deres egne liberale værdier når det ikke handlede om arvefjenderne blandt kristne og konservative hvide amerikanere og andre vesterlændinge. Som svar fik de en vred dosis argumentresistent udskamning (så kan de prøve det til en forandring). Vist er det amerikanske forhold, men deres venstrefløj er blot mere moderne end vores, der i højere grad hænger fast i marxisme og socialisme. Den danske venstrefløj står i samme realitetskrise så det amerikanske eksempel er lidt interessant at se på.

Den venstresnoede Peter Beinart kommer nemlig Ben Affleck til undsætning og advarer mod “Bill Maher’s Dangerous Critique of Islam”. Beinart trækker på Harvard professor Schlesingers manifest fra 1949 The Vital Center, hvori Schlesinger, som Bill Maher, opfordrer til ikke at stirre sig blind på nogen fløj, men bekæmpe antiliberale holdninger, hvor end de er. Som venstrefløjen svigter ved kritikken af islamisk praksis, svigtede den tidligere ved at holde hånden over kommunismen. Men, for der er ifølge Beinart et men

Where Maher goes wrong is in forgetting two other lessons of the liberal anti-totalitarian tradition. The first is to be precise about what you’re opposing. The second, to not get so carried away with your own virtue that you end up justifying terrible crimes.

Dette er to overraskende indvendinger og som viser at Breinart ikke har forstået eller ikke vil acceptere Maher og Harris kritik, blot på et højere plan end Afflecks . For Maher og Harris var netop meget specifikke med at det var en specifik religion og de angreb den kyndigt og specifik, så langt som debatten ikke blev forsøgt udskammet af Affleck. For det andet er det en uretfærdig anklage mod netop Maher, hvis eneste ideologiske selvkritik synes at være venstrefløjens blinde islamvinkel. Resten af Maher virke er et langt udfald mod kristne, konservative og mennesker der ved noget om klimaet.

Men Beinart uddyber sin pseudokritik af hvad han opfatter som Mahers og Harris manglende præcision

As Graham Greene wrote of Alden Pyle, the idealistic CIA agent in his novel, The Quiet American, “He was impregnably armoured by his good intentions and his ignorance.”

Maher is similarly armored today. It’s one thing to denounce the Saudi monarchy for its fanatical illiberalism. Like Stalin’s dictatorship, it’s a particular regime in a particular place. But to imply that Islamism—and by extension organizations such as Tunisia’s Ennahda Party or Turkey’s AKP, both of which have won democratic elections—are just milder versions of ISIS is dangerously sloppy. As Kennan insisted again and again, national circumstances often play a larger role in determining how cultures and political systems function than do transnational beliefs.

That’s especially true when the ideology isn’t even Islamism but Islam. Maher wants Americans to denounce Islam because while “all religions are stupid, Islam just happens to be the one right now, in this century, that’s most dangerous and violent.” That’s a wild overgeneralization. “Islam” is not violent or peaceful, dangerous or benign. Like every great religion, it includes a vast array of diverse and often contradictory teachings, which different people interpret in different ways in different places and times. Yes, in some Muslim-majority countries, women and religious minorities are treated brutally. But that has far more to do with their particular national circumstances than with the fact that Muslims populate them. After all, other Muslim-majority countries have elected female heads of state. To lump together Indonesia and Yemen because both countries are mostly Muslim makes about as much sense as lumping together Ireland and the Dominican Republic because both countries are mostly Catholic.

Restraining the evil that lurks within our own culture requires facing our own history of terrible crimes.

Men igen, det var især Harris og Mahers pointe at islam og muslimer ikke er synonyme, den pointe som Affleck heller ikke fangede da promte han kaldte det racisme. Islam er et manifest, som Schesingers manifest af 1949 er et manifest. Muslimer er mange, som venstreorienterede er mange. “Are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam?  You’re the interpreter of that?” udbrød Affleck udner debatten med Maher og Harris uanfægtet af den banalitet at der er en udlægning af islam - og af The Vital Center i øvrigt - uafhængigt af Mahers og Harris mening. Eller en vox-pop af bymuslimer et sted i verden for den sags skyld.

Manifester som koranen er skrevet så de ikke skal misforstås. Islam påstår en simpel udlægning, det er Allahs sidste klare befaling til hans slaver og for at udrydde enhver tvivl har han sendt Muhammed som budbringer så man har et pratisk eksempel til at forstå teorien. Hvor der er modstrid abrogerer de nyeste vers de ældste ud fra den klokkeklare logik at Muhammeds befalinger var stadigt mindre slørede af en fjendtlig omverden efterhånden som hans magt steg mod det absolutte. Af det følger logisk at det ikke giver mening at tale om at overgeneralisere islam da islam er et - i modsætning til mennesker, der er mange. Derfor er det ikke variationer i islam man kan observere når brutaliteten varier i islamiske samfund men variationer i de islamiske samfund.

Men hvorfor insisterer venstrefløjsere som Affleck og Beinart på at afvise banale sandheder og rationaler? Daniel Greenfield giver en hård analyse af venstrefløjens patologiske totalitarister og deres instinktive hang til overgangskrav i Frontpage Magazine

Ben Affleck isn’t a liberal. He’s an enthusiast of revisionist Communist historian Howard Zinn. The modern liberal of today is uninterested in identifying “illiberalism” since he is an illiberal man of the left. The most significant difference between the two is not simply political, but psychological. Liberals used to think about issues. Leftists respond to ideological cues while operating on a purely tribal wavelength.

Affleck’s assertion that criticizing Islam is racist is impossible to argue with. It’s completely wrong on multiple levels, but it’s not an argument. It’s a denunciation. It doesn’t advance an argument; it rejects the argument and the arguer as illegitimate. And it’s an ideological cue telling everyone else to follow.

Leftists don’t debate issues. That would be a liberal thing to do. Instead they seek to affirm a consensus. The consensus is reinforced by in-group flattery which convinces members that they are empathetic and enlightened people, while those outside the consensus are subjected to constant contempt and abuse. The denunciation places the target outside the consensus. Calling Maher a “racist” makes him a Tea Party member no matter how much he clings to a liberal identification. It makes him an outsider.

(…)

Gays, feminists and Muslims are a means to the left. They are not the reason why the left does things.

The left builds coalitions of disruption with interest groups. It doesn’t care about those groups. It’s just using them to get what it really wants which is a totalitarian state in which the consensus can implement all of its horrible ideas without any interference. Muslims are the newest coalition member and their disruption skills are impressive. Just look at how they managed to turn the Bush Administration around.

That doesn’t mean that the left cares about Muslims. It would toss them under the bus before they could shout “Allah Akhbar” if it suited the consensus. The liberal defenders of Islam have chosen not to read the Koran. They know next to nothing about Islam except that it’s a minority group. And that’s how they like it. That way they can shout down any criticism with cries of “Racism” because they’re too lazy to even bother stringing enough letters together to shout “Islamophobe”. That’s how little they care.

(…)

Leftists don’t value equality, they value disruption. If they can disrupt by promoting equality, they will do it. If they can disrupt by promoting inequality, they will do that. If they can disrupt by promoting gay marriage, promoting Islamists, promoting the environment, promoting unregulated industry, promoting freedom of speech or promoting hate speech laws, they will do those things in order of opportunism.

Their underlying goal is to replace existing ideas and systems with their own. Anything that serves that purpose is good. Anything that maintains the existing order is bad.

The very concept of universal standards that Maher is appealing to is foreign to the modern liberal. He doesn’t believe that there is a universal standard. He views the world as tribally as a Taliban. He can’t see behaviors as good or evil in isolation, but only in relation to ideological cues. He derives his heroes and villains from the tribal affinities of the left, not from the things that they actually do.

That’s why he wears a Che t-shirt while calling Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic for opposing Obama.

På den baggrund forstår man bedre en anekdote Raymond Ibrahim fortæller i et glimrende indlæg om Affleck -Maher i Frontpage Magazine

Towards the end, a frustrated Affleck, unable to respond, exclaimed, “What is your solution? To condemn Islam? To do what?”

These are interesting questions in that they reveal the true position of the apologist. I have encountered this phenomenon often, most memorably in a public debate with Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi.   Towards the end of the debate, he declared “You can sit here and talk about jihad from here to doomsday, what will it do? Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?”

What this line of reasoning suggests is that the apologist believes there is no other recourse than to be an apologist; that the best policy is to ignore Islam’s violence and intolerance, since the alternative—open acknowledgement—will lead to something worse, a clash of civilizations. War. And that must be avoided at all costs—so let us pretend.

Det amerikanske netmagasin Think Progress misforstod i første omgang Bill Mahers og Sam Harris kritik og mente at Maher gjorde sig skyld i “generalizing Islam“.

Yet in using the same kind of reasoning that officials have espoused to perpetuate Islamophobia, Maher and Harris mixes the violent actions of a few with millions of Muslims who are leading the initiative to show Islam as a peaceful religion.

Countering the conflation of the actions of a terrorist organization to millions of Muslim adherents, the brother of David Haines, who was beheaded by ISIS, reiterated the point that Islam is about peace and love. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has said that the group is “not a true form of Islam.” As ThinkProgress’ Igor Volsky and Jack Jenkins previously argued, the Islamic State is not Islamic: the terrorist organization does not abide by many of its fundamental tenets of Islam, like committing to peace or giving regard to the welfare of women and children. Instead, the terrorist group has committed systematic, gruesome violence, while a United Nations report released Thursday found that the group sold women and girls into sex slavery and forced children to become child soldiers. What’s more, nearly every American Muslim organization has roundly condemned the ideology and actions of the terrorist group, with some petitioning the name of the terrorist group be changed to “Unislamic State.”

Flere læsere udtrykte deres skuffelse på Facebook over at Think Progress ikke forstod, hverken Harris og Mahers pointer som de ikke vidste noget om islam. Efter mere end en uges debat er Think Progress ikke kommet videre, men holder stædigt fast i deres støtte til Afflecks position. Her omtaler

A Fox News host became visibly angry on Monday while trying to defend comedian Bill Maher’s comments about Islam. On Friday, the “Real Time” host argued that Islam “is the only religion that acts like the mafia” as he expanded on his claim that the “vast numbers of Muslims want humans to die for holding a different idea.”

In a segment about those remarks, Fox News host Bill Hemmer battled with two guests who took issue with Maher’s broad characterization. As they condemned the HBO host for painting the world’s one billion Muslims with too broad a brush, Hemmer insisted that Maher was accurate in his characterization.

“How do you define what’s bigotry and what’s just reality?” he asked, defending Maher’s position. After both guests criticized Maher’s comments, Hemmer interjected, telling them that they were “missing the point here.” “[Maher] is arguing about 2014,” he explained, implying that the religion is currently overflowing with terrorists.

As guest Bernard Whitman pointed out that “[Maher] indicted a billion Muslims with that comment,” Hemmer interrupted in frustration. “I can’t believe I’m defending Bill Maher!” he exclaimed, before insisting that the comedian was only referring to “radical Islam.”

Watch the exchange:

“The issue is not the religion of Islam, the issue is the politicization in the Islamic organizations that are using Islam as a crutch and as a shield to hide their true terrorist nature,” Whitman told Hemmer. Indeed, nearly every American Muslim organization and Muslim leaders around the world have condemned the ideology and actions of terrorists and ISIS, with some petitioning the name of the terrorist group be changed to “Unislamic State.”

Fox News has a lot history of trying to conflate terrorists with Islam. Fox host Steve Doocy has claimed that President Obama went to a “madrassa” and was possibly a Muslim extremist, Brian Kilmeade suggested “special screenings” for Muslim American soldiers after the Fort Hood shootings in 2009 and linked a commonly-used Arabic phrase to terrorism. Most recently, Bill O’Reilly criticized Bowe Bergdahl’s dad for looking too much like a Muslim.

ISIS er en sandhedens time ikke blot for den muslimske verden, en også for venstrefløjen. Islam er ikke længere en eksotisk abstrakt størrelse, hvis handlinger kan bortforklares med at den er underlagt allehånde politiske, imperialistiske og sociale strukturer. Nu har islam sit eget ubesmittede land at udleve sine grusomheder på, nu får alle syn for sagn. Seeing is believing, som man siger.

BEN AFFLECK: How about more than a billion people who aren’t fanatical, who don’t punch women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray 5 times a day, and don’t do any of the things you’re saying of all Muslims. It’s stereotyping.

SAM HARRIS, AUTHOR: I’m not saying all Muslims –

AFFLECK: Some of them do bad things and you’re painting the whole religion with that broad brush.

MAHER: Wait, let’s get down to who has the right answer here. A billion people, you say.

AFFLECK: A billion five.

MAHER: All these billion people don’t hold these pernicious beliefs?

AFFLECK: They don’t.

MAHER: That’s just not true, Ben. That’s just not true. You’re trying to say that these few people, that’s all the problem is, these few bad apples. The idea that someone should be killed if they leave the Islamic

AFFLECK: That’s horrible.

MAHER: But you’re saying the idea that someone should be killed if they leave the Islamic religion is just a few bad apples?

AFFLECK: The people who would actually believe in that you murder someone if they leave Islam is not the majority of Muslims at all…

SAM HARRIS: Just imagine you have some concentric circles. You have at the center, you have jihadists, these are people who wake up wanting to kill apostates, wanting to die trying. They believe in paradise, they believe in martyrdom. Outside of them, we have Islamists, these are people who are just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity but they want to work within the system. They’re not going to blow themselves up on a bus. They want to change governments, they want to use democracy against itself. Those two circles arguably are 20% of the Muslim world.

BEN AFFLECK: What are you basing that research on?

HARRIS: There are a bunch of poll results that we can talk about. To give you one point of contact: 78% of British Muslims think that the Danish cartoonist should have been prosecuted. 78%. So, I’m being conservative when I roll this back to 20%. But outside of that circle you have conservative Muslims who can honestly look at ISIS and say that does not represent us, we’re horrified by that but they hold views about human rights, and about women, and about homosexuals that are deeply troubling. So, these are not Islamists, they are not jihadists, but they often keep women and homosexuals immiserated in these cultures and we have to empower the true reformers in the Muslim world to change it. And lying about doctrine and this behavior is not going to do that…

MICHAEL STEELE, FMR. RNC CHAIR: So having said that, even if that is true, statistically or otherwise, the key thing to recognize that I don’t think is part of the argument but I think should be is that there are voices that are oftentimes raised in opposition to these jihadists and to these extreme acts but, guess what, they don’t covered, they don’t get exposed. And they’re not on the same level platform that we see jihadists get.

BILL MAHER: One reason they don’t get exposed is because they’re afraid to speak out because it’s the only religion that acts like the mafia that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book. There’s a reason why Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs bodyguards 24/7…

AFFLECK: What is your solution? To condemn Islam? To do what? We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more –

MAHER: I’m not for more dead Muslims.

AFFLECK: And somehow we’re exempt from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in. We did it by accident, that’s why we invaded Iraq.

MAHER: We’re not convincing anybody here.

AFFLECK: I’m simply telling you that I disagree with you.

MAHER: I understand, and we’re obviously not convincing anybody here.

HARRIS: You don’t understand my argument.

AFFLECK: Your argument is, “You know, black people, they shoot each other” –

MAHER: It’s not! No, it’s not. It’s based on facts. I can show you a Pew poll of Egyptians. They are not outliers in the Muslims world. It’s like 90% of them believe death is the appropriate response to leaving the religion. If 90% of Brazilians thought that death was the appropriate response to leaving Catholicism you would think it was a bigger deal.

AFFLECK: I would think it’s a big deal no matter what.

MAHER: Okay, well, that’s the facts.

AFFLECK: I wouldn’t say it’s all Brazilians, or I wouldn’t say, “Well, Ted Bundy did this. God damn these gays, they’re all trying to eat each other.”

HARRIS: Let me just give you what you want. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are nominal Muslims who don’t take the faith siresly, who don’t want to kill apostates, who are horrified by ISIS and we need to defend these people, prop them up and let them reform their faith.

AFFLECK: ISIS couldn’t couldn’t full a AA ballpark in Charleston, West Virginia and you want to make a career out of ISIS, ISIS, ISIS.

MAHER: No we’re not. That’s the opposite.

HARRIS: No, it’s not just ISIS, it’s all jihadists. It’s a phenomenon of global jihad.

MAHER: I think that’s the opposite of what we’re doing.

AFFLECK: There is those things. There is ISIS, there is global jihadists. The question is the degree to which you’re willing to say, because I’ve witnessed this behavior, which we all object to on part of these people, I’m willing to flatly condemn those of you I don’t know and never met.

MAHER: They’re not willing. This is based on reality.

HARRIS: It’s not condemning people, it’s ideas.

MAHER: It’s based on reality, Ben. We’re not take it up that in the Muslim world it is mainstream belief.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF: This is such a caricature of Indonesia, of Malaysia, of so much of the world. And this does have a tinge a little bit of how white racists talk about African-American and define blacks by –

MAHER: What you’re saying is because they are a minority, we shouldn’t criticize.

AFFLECK: It’s not a minority, it’s the second biggest religion in the world.

MAHER: Exactly, but you’re treating them like a minority. I mean if Filipinos were capturing teenagers and sending them into white slavery, we would criticize that. We wouldn’t say, oh, well, they’re Filipinos.

AFFLECK: You would criticize the people who are doing it, not the Philippines. A Filipino kid who lives on the streets has nothing to do with that. These are different things.

Cirka samtidig i New Yorks gader flasher muslimerne en flig af deres muslimske sentiment

Glimrende pædagogisk gennemgang af islams doktriner af David Wood. Når alle vores kære ledere igen og igen føler sig kaldet til at redde islams renomme ved den og den terroraktion eller ved halshugninger af ISIS eller småpigeudsalg hos Boko Haram falder det dem aldrig at de nøk for nøk negerer deres egen påstand. Man kan kun forkaste noget som en anomali så mange gange førend det er en trend.

Og de har da heller ikke noget at have deres spin og overspændte damage control i. ISIS er islam, islam er Boko Haram, Boko Haramm er Hamas og så videre. Og således er det morsomt på sin egen bedrøvelige facon at de kalder islam for den rene ondskab uden at ville være ved det.

Judith Curry er en internationalt anerkendt atmosfærefysiker, der fik et navn i offentligheden da hun få dage efter orkanen Katrinas hærgen i de amerikanske sydstater offentliggjorde en videnskabelig rapport der spåede stadigt flere og kraftigere orkaner som følge af den globale opvarmning. Skeptikere blev sure, ja vrede faktisk og mente hendes timing var udtryk for kynisk spekulation. Det var den nu ikke, rapportens offentliggørelse var planlagt mange måneder forinden. Curry blev til gengæld en helt for hele den bevægelse, der advarer mod den menneskeskabte globale opvarmning.

Men Katrina blev ikke det vendepunkt i hendes karriere det så ud til da de følgende år viste at den var afslutningen på de store orkaner. Virkeligheden gik modsat hendes forudsigelser. Curry havde åbenbart taget fejl og hun vidste at når teori og virkelighed ikke passer sammen så er det teorien den er gal med. I klimabranchen er det ikke en udbredt indsigt.

Når hun søgte forklaringer på det stigende antal diskrepanser blandt sine kollegaer var der ingen eller de gav ikke megen mening og hun blev i stigende grad lydhør overfor skeptikerne og deres argumenter og erkendte lidt efter lidt at udviklingen gav dem mere og mere ret i flere og flere disputter. Temperaturen var ikke steget i 10 år, trods Klimapanelts insisteren. I 12 år, 15 år og nu 17 år, hvor FN endelig har erkendt det. Vejret er ikke blevet mere ekstremt eller ildevarslende roligt, det humper stadigt derudad som det plejer og afkræver mennesket den rette påklædning. Polarhavet er ikke tæt med døde isbjørne; tun bliver ikke større mens fisk over en karm bliver mindre; der kommer ikke flere stofmisbrugere; køer bliver ikke sterile og japanere bliver ikke mere udsatte for bjørneangreb. Noget måtte revideres.

Curry fik mere respekt for den gammeldags empirisk baserede forskning med nye netværks muligheder for crowdsourcing, mens hendes tiltro tilsvarende faldt til de nye muligheder for at projicere sin angst over i computermodeller sikret via de gamle netværk af gatekeepers. Curry blev mere og mere skeptisk, hun bloggede og debatterede, åbnede for rå data og gennemgik præmisser og metoder og tal og usikkerheder. Nu var det hendes tidligere trosfæller inde og omkring FNs konsensus, der undsagde hende og kaldte hende alt fro en forræder til en mær. Man skal ikke undervurdere forskeres menneskelighed.

I Wall Street Journal argumenterer hun for at forskningen efterhånden påviser at klimaet ikke er så følsomt, som man ellers er gået ud fra. Det er meget diplomatisk, som hun altid er. Hvad der rent faktisk står er at debatten snart er død, klimaskrækken kan afblæses og vi kan roligt sætte bilen i tomgang natten over som vi plejer.

At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.” Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.

According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go.

In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.

Det er lidt med vemod at vi snart skal vinke farvel til klimadebatten. Javist kan der komme en periode, hvor der skal gøres regnskab, men alligevel. Inden for de nærmeste år er klimaproblemet forsvundet. Det er EU også. Og multikulturalismens sidste fortalere. Og Sverige.

Dancin in Jaffa er en israelsk film, om et forsøg på at få sameksistens mellem arabere og jøder gennem dans. Fra Youtube omtale

After decades abroad, renowned ballroom dancer Pierre Dulaine returns to his hometown of Jaffa, Israel, nostalgic for the streets of his youth but nervous and dismayed by the strong current of racial animosity that now serves as the norm. Fueled by his belief in dancing’s power to build self-esteem and social awareness, Dulaine brings his popular Dancing Classrooms program to three diverse, Jaffa-based schools where he teaches ballroom basics to the ethnically mixed population of children. Dulaine selects the most focused dancers to train for a citywide competition, pairing Palestinians with Jews, putting many of the children’s and, more pointedly, their families’ beliefs to the test.

As Dulaine’s passion for dance and no-nonsense style of teaching rubs off on the reluctant children, the competition offers the perfect window into their lives. Hilla Medalia’s story beautifully shows these historical archenemies forging an innocent but ultimately meaningful relationship that quickly takes on a much larger significance than what initially meets the eye. Dancing in Jaffa is a sweet and incredibly moving tale filled with moments of truth, poignancy and humor, offering a glimmer of hope in the intractable conflict.

Jeg har ikke undersøgt, hvorledes det går med dansen og samhørigheden i Jaffa, men man kan ikke danse alle problemer væk. Da filmen blev vist i Frankrig, blev den mødt med anti-israelske protester, skriver Times of Israel

Just as Medalia and Israeli Consul General in Marseille Barnea Hassid finished making introductory remarks, some twenty audience members stood up and began shouting anti-Israel slogans. Then they threw stink bombs.

“The police had to remove them by force,” Medalia told The Times of Israel upon her return to Israel on October 8.

The screening of the acclaimed film about Pierre Dulaine, four-time ballroom dancing world champion, returning to his hometown of Jaffa to bring Jewish and Palestinian children together through dance, was moved to another of the theater’s auditoriums.

Hilla Medalia (photo credit: Courtesy)

In the meantime, the protesters, joined by approximately 80 additional people, continued to vocally denounce Israel outside. Because the street was blocked off for security measures, the protesters were made to stand some distance from the building.

Seth Frantzman har set nærmere på den enorme mængde israleske statsstøttede sameksistens projekter, en fredsindustri, som en palæstinenser og finder at de næsten aldrig lykkedes. Frantzman mener at præmissen for initiativerne stort set altid er at den israelske side underlægger sig den palæstinensiske fortælling. Dette skyldes til dels at grupper sammensættes selektivt. For den israelske side handler det tit om idealistisk ønsketænkning og folk der direkte hader Israel. Omvendt deltager palæstinensere kun, hvis de mener det kan gavne den palæstinensiske sag. Eller hvis man kan score nogle kvindelige israelske drømmere.

At the end of the day grass roots coexistence work, like Budo for Peace, Nirkod LaShalom (Dancing for Peace), Soccer for Peace, running for peace, and the rest of the lot cater to small numbers of people who have no effect on wider society.  Year after year, surveys indicate either greater balkanization of Israeli society or at least a great deal of dislike of “the other,” for instance the Israel Democracy Index survey found that almost 50% of both Arabs and Jews don’t want each other as neighbors.

Are these groups just a cynical “industry” for the individuals who run them to make money and have something to do?  This is probably not the case; the individuals care deeply about their work, but it is obvious that there is a tendency for each group to be a “one man band,” catering to some tiny niche.  The fact that so many are supported by outside donors, such as foreign governments, and that few if any are run by Palestinians, means this is an artificial system that has no local roots.  The Peres Center 2012 bulletin talks about “building bridges” and “strengthening relationships” but it has been beating a dead horse for 15 year of this work.  Where are the bridges?  Where is the progress?

Real Coexistence Can’t Be Forced

For coexistence to ever be meaningful, it would have to build several real bridges.  First, it would have to not only be a case of Israelis supporting Palestinian nationalism and Palestinians supporting Palestinian nationalism.  It would have to really challenge Palestinians and hold them to the same accountability as Israeli society in terms of encouraging progressive and liberal values – to say nothing of recognizing the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism in the Land of Israel, not just “sorrow for the Holocaust”.  Second, it would have to appeal to not only secular Jews on the left and Palestinians who are nationalists.  Third, it would need to have indigenous Palestinian support and funding from Palestinian backers and Palestinians playing an integral part in running the organizations.

If Palestinians aren’t stepping forward to start “Dabka for Peace” or “embroidery for peace,” the situation isn’t going to improve.  Coexistence work should not be a cover for radical anti-Israel views, such as one “coexistence” activist who compared the hardship of waiting at a checkpoint in a Palestinian bus to the mass murder of Israeli civilians on a bus, in an essay now removed from online called “a tale of two buses.”  Blowing people up, shooting them, sniper fire, “resistance” and tunnels; none of that has anything to do with coexistence.

Det synes Peter Wivel i hvert fald at mene i Politiken, hvor han forsvarer den svenske tilgang til fængsling af dissidenter. Om Dan Park sagen, hvor den svenske gadesatiriker Dan Park blev fængslet for at gøre sig morsom over den svenske multikulturalismes selvmodsigelser, fremkommer Wivel med denne kandidat til årets citat

Sagen rejser spørgsmålet om, hvor meget racisme vi kan tåle i et Europa, der presses af stadig større flygtningestrømme.

Friheden er indvandringens pris - og indvandringen kan ikke stoppes. Wivel fortsætter sit indlæg med at forsvare det svenske retssystem ved Malmø Tingsret og kommer med følgende opfordring til de danske udstillere Trykkefrihedsselskabet og Hornsleth & Friends

Hornsleth & Friends vil gøre debatten, for slet ikke at tale om ytringsfriheden, en stor tjeneste ved at bringe dommen i sin helhed og i dansk oversættelse i det katalog, der forhåbentlig følger med udstillingen. Fordomme er som bekendt domme, man fælder, før man ved besked med sagen.

Det er en god ide med dokumentation, men den vil ikke understøtte Wivels og Malmø Tingsrets pointe ifølge Jens Martin Eriksen i et interview med Information

[D]e præmisser, Malmø Tingret har lagt til grund for dommen, vidner om  rystende amatørarbejde. Selv inden for den svenske anti hatespeech-lovgivnings rammer«.

– Vil du uddybe den vurdering?

»I dommen bliver der konsekvent set bort fra det forhold, at Dan Parks billeder har karakter af karikatur. Beskrivelserne i dommen af værkerne udmaler nok deres ’fornedrende og hetzende’ indhold, men det sker på sært løsrevet måde. At gøre grin med de karikerede er hele naturens væsen, og de værker, jeg har set af Dan Park, indskriver sig alle i en aktuel kontekst. Karikaturgenren er per definition en kommentar til lokale politiske slagsmål. Og derfor kan man slet ikke læse en karikaturtegning, hvis man afkobler ethvert kendskab til dens kontekst«.

Det er nu ikke Wivels opfattelse og hans analyse af Parks udtryk er et spejlkabinet, der gør ofre til gerningsmænd, som allerede overskriften siger . Wivel står dog fast og giver det mest omtalte eksempel

I fjor protesterede Momodou over et overfald, udført af en flok muslimske mænd og kvinder i Kroksbäck i Malmø. Ofret, den dansk-gifte Yusupha Sallah, havde nær mistet livet. Hans lille søn led fysisk og psykisk overlast. Park udstillede ofret på en plakat, hvor Momodou og Sallah – sammen med en sort amerikaner – ses med løkker om halsen under teksten ’Hang-on Afrofobians’.

Park arbejder her med en satireform, der skal vise, at »mønten har to sider«. Han holder et spejl op for jøder og sorte. I det kan de se, at de selv optræder som racister over for det tolerante svenske samfund.

Med deres ømskindede beklagelser placerer de sig i en aggressiv offerrolle. De siger i virkeligheden: ’I vil gasse os’ og ’I vil lynche os som negerslaver’. Det, du siger, er du selv, lyder Parks alt andet end uskyldige budskab.

Dette er ikke helt sandt, som man kan læse i Berlingske Tidende, hvor Frederik Stjernfeldt beskriver omstændighederne i lidt mere

Det gælder fx. sagen om, hvordan en sort fader, Yusupha Sallah, og hans lille dreng blev brutalt overfaldet på en bro i Malmø af en gruppe på over ti personer, der bl.a. havde råbt: »Din jävla svarta man, jag vill döda dig och din son«. Sagen vakte stor opsigt i Sverige, med avisledere, demonstrationer imod racisme osv. - lige indtil det blev klart, at det racistiske overfald ikke var begået af etniske svenskere, men derimod af kurdiske indvandrere: så forstummede kritikken fuldstændig. Det var dén sag, der lå bag Parks collage »Hang on Afrofobians« (Bliv ved, afro-hadere) – der spiller på, at hvis gerningsmanden selv har minoritetsbaggrund, så kan man åbenbart bare fortsætte med racistiske overfald (af den halve snes deltagere i det livstruende overfald blev kun én dømt – til to års fængsel).

Den vigtige detalje med at antiracistiske protester kun gjaldt så langt man troede det var etniske svenskere har Peter Wivel altså løjet ud af sammenhængen, for at komme til en mere infam konklusion om Dan Parks værker. Jens Martin Eriksen helt enig med Stjernfeldt og han tilføjer

[Dan Park] siger Hang on Afrofobians, for det er den opfordring, han mener at høre til voldsmændene fra et politisk korrekt Sverige, der klapper i. Hvad han i realiteten gør, er at levere en spiddende kommentar til relativismen i den såkaldte antiracisme: At racisme og racistiske hadforbrydelser kun kan erkendes som sådan, hvis det er etniske europæere, der står som aggressor og alle andre etniciteter, der står som offer. Men har man aggressorer af anden etnisk herkomst, bliver deres overgreb afideologiseret. Så bliver episoden til en notits, en tilfældig begivenhed i døgnet, som ikke er værd at nævne på den politiske agenda og giver ikke anledning til mobilisering«.

– Hvorfor ikke?

»Motivforskning er en sumpet affære, men rimeligvis, fordi man har sagt: ’Åh nej, fokus på denne sag, risikerer kun at gavne Sverigesdemokraterne’. Episoden følger en bredere tendens, hvor man lukker sådanne sager fuldstændig ned.

Konsekvensen af dette er, at antiracisme i denne dominerende variant i dag har mistet al troværdighed, fordi den reelt promoverer og beskytter den racisme, der fx kommer fra muslimske arabere. Antiracisterne er simpelt hen ude af stand til at tænke i de baner, at der også kunne eksistere der racisme i alle kulturer, også i de indvandrerkulturer, der kommer til Europa. De har fået den idé, at racisme er et endogent fænomen i europæisk kultur. Det betyder, at de heller ikke kan erkende indvandrermiljøers voldsomme sanktioner mod indvandrerpiger, der har haft etniske europæiske fyre som kæreste – i værste fald æresdrab – som racistiske hadforbrydelser. Selv om den udstødelse, som bliver reaktionen på den slags kæresteforhold, er præcis så racistisk, som reaktionen over for nigger lovers i de amerikanske sydstater i gamle dage«.

Efter så megen tale om Dan Park sagen er Peter Wivels indlæg selv for Politikens standard rystende. Ikke nok med at Wivel så frejdigt foreslår ytringsfriheden (af ham betegnet racisme), og det er jo blot den første i rækken af stødende friheder for muslimer, fjernet, så lyver han formodentlig bevist for at lade karaktermordet på Dan Park bane vejen for en knægtelse af danskernes frihed. Hans kamp er tabt på forhånd selfølgelig, Danmark og Sverige bevæger sig nu i hver sin retningen og i Danmark er Sverige ved at blive skræmmebilledet på en udvikling, en svensk tilstand man skal vare sig for. Hvad Wivels absurditeter gør for menigheden på Politiken har vi endnu til gode at se.

Fra Russia Times

Peaceful protests against IS in Syria and Iraq organized by Kurdish nationals in several German cities ended with serious clashes with pro-jihadist Muslims in Hamburg and Celle. Police had to request reinforcements to restore order.

Police in Hamburg, a port city of 1.8 million people, used water cannons, batons and pepper spray late Tuesday to disperse crowds of warring Kurds and pro-jihadist Muslims, armed with knives and brass-knuckles, following a protest against Islamic State militants who are attacking the Kurdish town of Kobani in Syria near the Turkish border.

Forleden henviste jeg her på Monokultur til et indlæg af Bent Jensen, hvor han kaldte på den samme videnskabelige tilgang til islam og Muhammeds manglende eksistens, som man underkaster alle andre religioner for (jødedom og Kristendom). En god ven sendte mig prompte et link til denne glimrende dokumentar.

Islams skriftkloge er næppe i tvivl om Muhammeds eksistens. Men de aner nok at historiens renhed ikke tåler et videnskabeligt eftersyn. i hvert fald har man travlt i Saudiarabien med at slette alle spor efter Muhammed bl.a ud fra en devise om at artefakter fra Muhammed ville blive gjort til relikvier og blive genstand for afgudsdyrkelse. New York Times skriver om det store byggeprojekt i Mekka

WHEN Malcolm X visited Mecca in 1964, he was enchanted. He found the city “as ancient as time itself,” and wrote that the partly constructed extension to the Sacred Mosque “will surpass the architectural beauty of India’s Taj Mahal.”

Fifty years on, no one could possibly describe Mecca as ancient, or associate beauty with Islam’s holiest city. Pilgrims performing the hajj this week will search in vain for Mecca’s history.

The dominant architectural site in the city is not the Sacred Mosque, where the Kaaba, the symbolic focus of Muslims everywhere, is. It is the obnoxious Makkah Royal Clock Tower hotel, which, at 1,972 feet, is among the world’s tallest buildings. It is part of a mammoth development of skyscrapers that includes luxury shopping malls and hotels catering to the superrich. The skyline is no longer dominated by the rugged outline of encircling peaks. Ancient mountains have been flattened. The city is now surrounded by the brutalism of rectangular steel and concrete structures — an amalgam of Disneyland and Las Vegas.

The “guardians” of the Holy City, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the clerics, have a deep hatred of history. They want everything to look brand-new. Meanwhile, the sites are expanding to accommodate the rising number of pilgrims, up to almost three million today from 200,000 in the 1960s.

The initial phase of Mecca’s destruction began in the mid-1970s, and I was there to witness it. Innumerable ancient buildings, including the Bilal mosque, dating from the time of the Prophet Muhammad, were bulldozed. The old Ottoman houses, with their elegant mashrabiyas — latticework windows — and elaborately carved doors, were replaced with hideous modern ones. Within a few years, Mecca was transformed into a “modern” city with large multilane roads, spaghetti junctions, gaudy hotels and shopping malls.

The few remaining buildings and sites of religious and cultural significance were erased more recently. The Makkah Royal Clock Tower, completed in 2012, was built on the graves of an estimated 400 sites of cultural and historical significance, including the city’s few remaining millennium-old buildings. Bulldozers arrived in the middle of the night, displacing families that had lived there for centuries. The complex stands on top of Ajyad Fortress, built around 1780, to protect Mecca from bandits and invaders. The house of Khadijah, the first wife of the Prophet Muhammad, has been turned into a block of toilets. The Makkah Hilton is built over the house of Abu Bakr, the closest companion of the prophet and the first caliph.

Apart from the Kaaba itself, only the inner core of the Sacred Mosque retains a fragment of history. It consists of intricately carved marble columns, adorned with calligraphy of the names of the prophet’s companions. Built by a succession of Ottoman sultans, the columns date from the early 16th century. And yet plans are afoot to demolish them, along with the whole of the interior of the Sacred Mosque, and to replace it with an ultramodern doughnut-shaped building.

The only other building of religious significance in the city is the house where the Prophet Muhammad lived. During most of the Saudi era it was used first as a cattle market, then turned into a library, which is not open to the people. But even this is too much for the radical Saudi clerics who have repeatedly called for its demolition. The clerics fear that, once inside, pilgrims would pray to the prophet, rather than to God — an unpardonable sin. It is only a matter of time before it is razed and turned, probably, into a parking lot.

Og sådan ser det ud.

Virker det ikke bekendt?

Og sjovt nok ligner Orthanc i Isengard Germasolar anlægget i Andalusien

Aesthetica totalitarianism.

Udviklingen i den arabiske verden, af nogen kaldet et sammenbrud, tvinger venstrefløjen til et opgør med sine idealer og fjendebilleder. Islam kan ikke længere bare beskyttes som den brune mands religion, beskyttet mod kritik med racismeanklager. Kalifatet, Boko Haram (skulle vi ikke have vores piger tilbage?), Al Shabab soler sig stolte i deres eskalerende grusomheder. I gaderne herhjemme hærger muslimske bander, terrortruslen er stigende og sympatisører skærer hovedet af en soldat på åben gade eller skyder jøder ved et museum. Og optog af agressive muslimer der føler sig krænket er tiltagende. Presset på de offentlige kasser har passeret smertegrænsen og ingen imødekommenhed med fjernelse af svinekød, bare patter eller tegninger ser ud til at mildne udviklingen. Tværtimod er det som at række fanden en lillefinger.

Venstrefløjen mærker at de har holdt på den forkerte hest, at muslimerne ikke blot er højrefløjens hovedpine. De mærker efterhånden at deres importerede hævn over det samfund som de har gjort det til en vane at foragte til fordel for hvad som helst andet også vil trække dem og deres ned i det ultimative barbari. Og selvransagelsen er så småt i gang. Nederst i denne post er et skægt eksempel fra USA, hvor filmstjernen Ben Affleck tilsviner programværten Bill Maher og argumenterer for, njarh, påstår bare, at islamkritik er racisme.

Klippet varer 10 minutter og derfor kan man med fordel blot læse det venstredrejede Think Progress omtale. Fremhævningerne er mine og man kan faktisk grundlæggende nøjes med at læse dem for et øjeblik med venstredrejet surrealisme

In a testy ten-minute exchange on “Real Time” with television host Bill Maher and author Sam Harris, Hollywood actor Ben Affleck slammed the host for commenting that Islam is the only religion that acts like the “mafia.” Along with journalist Nicholas Kristof, Affleck argued that ascribing an entire religion based on the actions of the terrorist group Islamic State, was “gross” and “racist,” while Maher and Harris shot back that criticizing Islam “gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims as people,” a ploy that others have used to build on anti-Muslim sentiment in the country.

During the exchange with Kristof and RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Affleck took the lead to slam Maher and Harris for defending their generalization of Islam. Harris stated, “We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims as people.” Affleck asked, “Are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam?”

To Maher’s idea of generalizing Islam, Affleck said, “It’s gross, it’s racist,” while Kristof added that the view of Muslims is “incomplete,” referring to the example of Malala Yousafzai, a teenager shot by fundamentalists, who is part of the larger peaceful Muslim movement. Harris panned both Affleck and Kristof’s responses saying that Islam is “the motherload of bad ideas” and that fundamentalists are not just the “fringe group” of practicing Muslims.

Still later in the exchange, Maher said, “It’s the only religion that acts like the mafia that will [expletive] kill you if you say the wrong thing, paint the wrong picture or write the wrong book” to which Affleck shot back, “What is your solution? To condemn Islam? To do what? We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot.”

Det umiddelbart bizarre er selvfølgelig Affleks manglende forståelse for d’herrer Mahar og Harris advarsel mod at blande kritik af en religion sammen med fordømmelse af dens udøvere, til hvilket Afflek svarer at det er racisme. Men ironien er også tabt på Think Progress, der mener “Afflek slams Bill Mahars antimuslim sentiment” og tilslutter sig Affleks påstand at man ikke kan generalisere islam. Hvilket altså vil sige at islam er udefinerbart. Det tror jeg især muslimer vi være kede af at høre. Men selv om selvransagelsen er igang så er der altså lang vej hjem.

Politikere tror de ændre verden med ord. Trods alt kan de ændre deres karriere med ord. Men at sætte en dagsorden for en tid er ikke det samme som at bestemme over virkeligheden. Man kan ikke definere sig ud af problemerne, højst skjule dem en rum til ; til efter valget eller bedre tider (hvad der kommer først). Politikerne kan ikke frit bestemme om det at angribe med militære midler er en krig eller ej for krig er krig uanset civiliserede spidsfindigheder. Politiken har en glimrende oplysningsmættet og pædagogisk artikel, der uddyber, hvad Thorning mente, da hun sagde at vi teknisk ikke var i krig

Hvis man ser stringent på juraen, så er Danmark ikke i krig. For selve det juridiske begreb »krig« blev afskaffet for omkring 65 år siden, fortæller jurist og ph.d. Peter Vedel Kessing, der er seniorforsker ved Institut for Menneskerettigheder.

»Krig er et begreb, man ikke bruger i folkeretten længere. Det brugte man i gamle dage før Anden Verdenskrig, men det blev afskaffet i 1949 med Geneve-konventionen«, fortæller han.

I stedet taler Geneve-konventionen om »væbnede konflikter«. Altså konflikter, hvor der bliver brugt våben til at løse dem. Konventionen opstiller en række regler og retningslinjer, som skal overholdes i disse konflikter.

Når man droppede ordet »krig«, så skyldes det, at begrebet var blevet for politisk, og at det var blevet uklart, hvad det præcist betød. Der var derfor brug for et stringent juridisk begreb, og det blev altså »væbnet konflikt«. Så langt så godt. Danmark er altså juridisk set ikke i krig, for krig findes ikke som juridisk begreb.

LÆS ARTIKELBredt flertal har stemt ja: Danmark går endnu engang i krig

Dertil kommer, at der er to former for væbnede konflikter.

Den ene er en international væbnet konflikt mellem stater. Her kan vi nævne krigen mellem Iran og Irak i 1980′erne, men mere relevant for nutidens dagsorden er krigen mellem Irak og den amerikansk ledede koalition af lande, herunder Danmark. Dengang i 2003 var Danmark i international væbnet konflikt med Irak. Vi var - i folkemunde - i krig.

Der gik dog ikke længe, før Iraks diktator Saddam Hussein var væltet, og dermed ophørte den internationale væbnede konflikt. Der kom en ny irakisk regering, og da landet ikke blev mere fredeligt af, at Saddam Hussein var væk - snarere tværtimod - så bad den irakiske regering Danmark og andre lande om at blive i landet og hjælpe med at skabe sikkerhed.

Med base i Basra var Danmark altså ikke længere part i en international væbnet konflikt mellem stater. Derimod hjalp vi en stat med at beskytte sig mod forskellige oprørsgrupper, der truede staten Irak. Vi blev ifølge juraen i Geneve-konventionen part i en ikke-international væbnet konflikt.

Og nu gentager historien sig. I samme land.

»Med beslutningen om at deltage i koalitionen med kampfly er Danmark dermed part i en ikke-international væbnet konflikt. Vi hjælper den irakiske regering med at nedkæmpe en oprørsgruppe, nemlig Islamisk Stat«, siger Peter Vedel Kessing.

Men krig er krig uanset hjemlig politisk indpakning og folkeretsligt juristeri (sjovt i øvrigt så meget fokus man har på at skelne mellem de forskellige former for væbnet konflikt når man mindes den unuancerede harme over amerikanernes juridiske og administrative dilemmaer med non-combatanter og Gitmo). Politikerne kan heller ikke tale sig ud af, hvem der føler sig angrebet. Når Vesten begynder at bombe ISIS nede i muslimland så føler muslimerne sig angrebet. Det betyder ikke en pind, hvor meget Obama, Cameron og Thorning forsikrer at det ikke er islam de bomber, men nogen der  ikke er rigtige muslimer og som udnytter islam. Særligt slemme var Venstres hårde hund Inger Støjberg, der talte om en ugudelig misfortolkning på sin FB side, kun overgået af hendes formand og Danmarks måske kommende statsminister Lars Løkke, der i msiforstået hensyn mente at islam var blevet voldtaget af ISIS. Virkeligt? Når muslimmænd går amok i vrede og råber ‘jeg knepper dig’ som den ultimative hån, så finder Løkke det religiøst sensitivt at sige at islam er sådan noget som bliver kneppet for alle at se? Men uanset hvad vestlige ledere end måtte bedyre så mener muslimer sig under angreb. Islam er et hele, en nation, den hedder Umma. Det svarer til at vi bombede Hong Kong mens vi bedyrede hvilken skændsel det var for det rigtige Kina.

End ikke oprørene i Syrien er begejstrede, som man kan læse i Syria Pulse

Several rebel factions have issued statements of dissatisfaction with the alliance’s strikes for not targeting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

The Hazem movement said in a statement obtained by Al-Monitor, “The airstrikes are considered a violation of national sovereignty and an attack against the Syrian revolution. We will only work according to the revolution’s priorities, not according to the will of the international alliance.”

Hazem, which falls within the category of the moderate opposition and was among the first groups that received US TOW missiles, said, “The only side benefiting from the foreign intervention in Syria is Assad’s regime, especially in the absence of a real strategy to topple it.”

The movement condemned the deaths of civilians following the alliance’s raids on Idlib and Homs. One of the inhabitants who had returned from Kfar Daryan in the Aleppo countryside told Al-Monitor on the condition of anonymity that 12 civilians had been killed by the alliance’s raids, most of them children from the Barakat family, saying, “Four shells targeted Jabhat al-Nusra’s locations, but the fifth one fell on the town and killed the inhabitants of two houses that were completely destroyed.”

Og ifølge teksten til videoen herunder så går moderate muslimer i Syrien i solidaritets demonstration i protest mod bombningerne af ISIS

The Ahrar al-Sham “moderate” rebel group that belongs to the “Islamic Front” conglomerate of “moderate” Islamist brigades, which is mainly supported - both financially and militarily - by Saudi Arabia, came out today in support of the “Islamic State” (aka ISIL or ISIS) and al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra terror groups against the US-led coalition. Protestors can be seen in Houla (Homs province) carrying ISIL flags and shouting slogans against the establishment of a secular state.

Og herhjemme var Erik Westergaard til fredagsbøn i Grimhøjmoskeen i Århus og beskrev sin oplevelse på Facebook

For et par uger siden var jeg til fredagsbøn i Grimhøjmoskeen i Århus. Jeg søgte ud over oplevelsen, nogle konkrete informationer og mere viden om bestemte ting. Det var en ret voldsom oplevelse og stemningen var mildt sagt noget trykket for den ene hvide mand, blandt ca. 300 knap så hvide mænd !

Sidst mødte jeg bla. 3 meget forskellige mænd som jeg alle efterfølgende har talt med. Det har medført yderligere et besøg ved fredagsbønnen i dag. Hvis der var sort af mennesker sidst, var det intet at regne for deltagelsen i dag.

Det var umuligt at finde en parkeringsplads i nærheden, så jeg parkerede på en mark over 400 meter væk. Der var mindst 3-400 biler i området og så mange mennesker at jeg må sige +500 i og omkring moskeen. Bemærkede 3 biler hvori der sad “danske” kvinder, de sad der også jeg kom tilbage, måske de ventede, det så sådan ud !

Var stemningen træls sidst, var den direkte modbydelig denne gang, men for sent…. jeg havde allerede taget skoene af. Jeg blev hurtigt glad for at have været der før og derfor “kendte stedet”. Der var rigtig mange der meget gerne lige ville ha et par ord med mig… Hvad laver du her, tar du billeder, er du fra politi, er du journalist osv. osv. Prøvede med humoren, men den virker bare ikke her ! Så det var stoneface og fuld skrue på entreen.

Imamen - der sidst gik frisk til opgaven - gik fra start yderligere 2-3 trin/niveauer op ad stigen og både råbte og skreg og jeg skal love for der blev udbasuneret nogle budskaber ! Stemningen var bare alt andet end hjertelig.

Ved et tilfælde mødte jeg en af mine “nye venner” Ahmed, der noget forbløffet spurgte hvad jeg lavede der ? “Det samme som dig, svarede jeg….. Sender lidt bønner afsted.

“Du er ikke rask… du må gå, sagde han. Det er ikke i dag du skal være her. Mange er ikke glade….
Bingo…. så faldt 10øren (dumme jyde) Havde et kort øjeblik glemt vi i går morges havde sendt 7 stk. F16 til Mellemøsten for at bombe !! Og det var i høj grad det der var galt !

Selv om jeg til tider står lidt lavt i tændingen, fattede jeg budskabet og fortrak inden bønnen var færdig. Jeg gik før alle samles oppe foran Imamen. Heldigvis nåede jeg at tale med yderligere 2 mennesker, hvilket jeg fik en del ud af, så forgæves var det ikke.

På vejen ud tog jeg en hurtig selfie, hvilket lynhurtigt fik 3 unge Somaliere til at samles om mig for at spørge om jeg tog billeder. Nej svarede jeg - jeg sælger kun billeder, men det er en anden historie ! Jeg fortrak og noterede mig, at der nu også ved Grimøjmoskeen ses IS flag i bilerne (2 stk.). Politiet kunne i øvrigt med nogen succes, aflægge stedet et besøg en fredag, sidst var der 2 biler uden nummerplader, denne gang mindst 5.

Og fra den lokale afdeling af Mordor i København Mjølnerparken

Og hverken i Danmark eller Holland er det nu sikkert at færdes i sin militæruniform i sit fædreland. Efterhånden som missionen med den væbnede intervenøse aktion eskalerer vil kontrasterne kun stå stadigt skarpere og skarpere mellem dem og os. Vi er i krig og fjenden bor i vores gader.